arXiv subjects

Ulrike von Luxburg

Publications and source records attributed to Ulrike von Luxburg.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

We Need Explanation Cards to Connect Explanation Algorithms to the Real World

Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short. First, the meaning of algorithmic explanations is often not what one might intuitively expect, so expert knowledge is required to interpret them correctly. Second, recent work has shown that popular explanation algorithms are uninformative about the behavior of complex decision functions. Together, these issues create a gap between what explanations appear to convey and what they actually provide. In this work, we propose Explanation Cards for Explanation Algorithms, which augment standard explanations with complementary information about robustness and validity, as well as clear instructions for interpretation. The complementary information can render otherwise uninformative explanations practically useful, while also helping to detect cases where they are not. Importantly, the interpretation instructions in explanation cards shift responsibility from users to providers: Rather than expecting users to recognize what can and cannot be concluded from an explanation, providers must make this explicit upfront. Using counterfactual explanations and SHAP as examples, we demonstrate how providers can construct explanation cards and that these cards provide users with the guidance needed for sound interpretation. We further argue that explanation cards offer a practical means of operationalising the explainability provisions of the EU AI Act. Overall, explanation cards are a significant step toward making explanation algorithms fit for real-world use cases.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Using predictive multiplicity to measure individual performance within the AI Act

When building AI systems for decision support, one often encounters the phenomenon of predictive multiplicity: a single best model does not exist; instead, one can construct many models with similar overall accuracy that differ in their predictions for individual cases. Especially when decisions have a direct impact on humans, this can be highly unsatisfactory. For a person subject to high disagreement between models, one could as well have chosen a different model of similar overall accuracy that would have decided the person's case differently. We argue that this arbitrariness conflicts with the EU AI Act, which requires providers of high-risk AI systems to report performance not only at the dataset level but also for specific persons. The goal of this paper is to put predictive multiplicity in context with the EU AI Act's provisions on accuracy and to subsequently derive concrete suggestions on how to evaluate and report predictive multiplicity in practice. Specifically: (1) We introduce the AI Act's accuracy provisions and argue that incorporating information about predictive multiplicity could serve compliance with specific provisions for providers. (2) Based on this legally rigorous analysis, we suggest individual conflict ratios and $δ$-ambiguity as tools to quantify the disagreement between models on individual cases and to help detect individuals subject to conflicting predictions. (3) Based on computational insights, we derive easy-to-implement rules on how model providers could evaluate predictive multiplicity in practice. (4) Ultimately, we suggest that information about predictive multiplicity should be made available to deployers under the AI Act, enabling them to judge whether system outputs for specific individuals are reliable enough for their use case.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Validity Threats for Foundation Model Research

Controlled experiments are the backbone of machine learning research, but at the scale of modern foundation models, they have become prohibitively expensive. Instead, the community increasingly relies on research strategies that approximate the ideal experiment at a fraction of the cost: proxy experiments and scaling laws, observational studies with publicly available models, and single-run designs that leverage variation within individual training runs. In this work, we argue that there is no free lunch when approximating large-scale experiments on a compute budget. Specifically, savings in compute come at the cost of validity threats -- hidden and sometimes untestable assumptions that, when violated, can invalidate research claims. To help navigate such threats, we propose an evaluation framework that casts foundation model research as a causal inference problem. Within this framework, we evaluate different research strategies through four types of validity adapted from the empirical social sciences -- statistical, internal, external, and construct validity. We find that each strategy comes with a characteristic validity profile: proxy experiments trade external and construct validity for statistical and internal validity; observational studies face confounding and effect heterogeneity; and single-run designs are strained by interference between treated units. This analysis reveals several validity threats that have received insufficient attention in the literature. Overall, our evaluation framework provides researchers with a practical toolkit for scrutinizing validity threats in foundation model research~designs.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Performative Validity of Recourse Explanations

When applicants get rejected by an algorithmic decision system, recourse explanations provide actionable suggestions for how to change their input features to get a positive evaluation. A crucial yet overlooked phenomenon is that recourse explanations are performative: When many applicants act according to their recommendations, their collective behavior may change statistical regularities in the data and, once the model is refitted, also the decision boundary. Consequently, the recourse algorithm may render its own recommendations invalid, such that applicants who make the effort of implementing their recommendations may be rejected again when they reapply. In this work, we formally characterize the conditions under which recourse explanations remain valid under performativity. A key finding is that recourse actions may become invalid if they are influenced by or if they intervene on non-causal variables. Based on our analysis, we caution against the use of standard counterfactual explanations and causal recourse methods, and instead advocate for recourse methods that recommend actions exclusively on causal variables.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

On the Surprising Effectiveness of Large Learning Rates under Standard Width Scaling

Scaling limits, such as infinite-width limits, serve as promising theoretical tools to study large-scale models. However, it is widely believed that existing infinite-width theory does not faithfully explain the behavior of practical networks, especially those trained in standard parameterization (SP) meaning He initialization with a global learning rate. For instance, existing theory for SP predicts instability at large learning rates and vanishing feature learning at stable ones. In practice, however, optimal learning rates decay slower than theoretically predicted and networks exhibit both stable training and non-trivial feature learning, even at very large widths. Here, we show that this discrepancy is not fully explained by finite-width phenomena. Instead, we find a resolution through a finer-grained analysis of the regime previously considered unstable and therefore uninteresting. In particular, we show that, under cross-entropy (CE) loss, the unstable regime comprises two distinct sub-regimes: a catastrophically unstable regime and a more benign controlled divergence regime, where logits diverge but gradients and activations remain stable. Moreover, under large learning rates at the edge of the controlled divergence regime, there exists a well-defined infinite width limit where features continue to evolve in all the hidden layers. In experiments across optimizers, architectures, and data modalities, we validate that neural networks operate in this controlled divergence regime under CE loss but not under MSE loss. Our empirical evidence suggests that width-scaling considerations are surprisingly useful for predicting empirically maximal stable learning rate exponents which provide useful guidance on optimal learning rate exponents. Finally, our analysis clarifies the effectiveness and limitations of recently proposed layerwise learning rate scaling for standard initialization.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Informative Post-Hoc Explanations Only Exist for Simple Functions

Many researchers have suggested that local post-hoc explanation algorithms can be used to gain insights into the behavior of complex machine learning models. However, theoretical guarantees about such algorithms only exist for simple decision functions, and it is unclear whether and under which assumptions similar results might exist for complex models. In this paper, we introduce a general, learning-theory-based framework for what it means for an explanation to provide information about a decision function. We call an explanation informative if it serves to reduce the complexity of the space of plausible decision functions. With this approach, we show that many popular explanation algorithms are not informative when applied to complex decision functions, providing a rigorous mathematical rejection of the idea that it should be possible to explain any model. We then derive conditions under which different explanation algorithms become informative. These are often stronger than what one might expect. For example, gradient explanations and counterfactual explanations are non-informative with respect to the space of differentiable functions, and SHAP and anchor explanations are not informative with respect to the space of decision trees. Based on these results, we discuss how explanation algorithms can be modified to become informative. While the proposed analysis of explanation algorithms is mathematical, we argue that it holds strong implications for the practical applicability of these algorithms, particularly for auditing, regulation, and high-risk applications of AI.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Rethinking Explainable Machine Learning as Applied Statistics

In the rapidly growing literature on explanation algorithms, it often remains unclear what precisely these algorithms are for and how they should be used. In this position paper, we argue for a novel and pragmatic perspective: Explainable machine learning needs to recognize its parallels with applied statistics. Concretely, explanations are statistics of high-dimensional functions, and we should think about them analogously to traditional statistical quantities. Among others, this implies that we must think carefully about the matter of interpretation, or how the explanations relate to intuitive questions that humans have about the world. The fact that this is scarcely being discussed in research papers is one of the main drawbacks of the current literature. Moving forward, the analogy between explainable machine learning and applied statistics suggests fruitful ways for how research practices can be improved.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

How Much Can We Forget about Data Contamination?

The leakage of benchmark data into the training data has emerged as a significant challenge for evaluating the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). In this work, we challenge the common assumption that small-scale contamination renders benchmark evaluations invalid. First, we experimentally quantify the magnitude of benchmark overfitting based on scaling along three dimensions: The number of model parameters (up to 1.6B), the number of times an example is seen (up to 144), and the number of training tokens (up to 40B). If model and data follow the Chinchilla scaling laws, minor contamination indeed leads to overfitting. At the same time, even 144 times of contamination can be forgotten if the training data is scaled beyond five times Chinchilla, a regime characteristic of many modern LLMs. Continual pre-training of OLMo-7B corroborates these results. Next, we study the impact of the weight decay parameter on example forgetting, showing that empirical forgetting occurs faster than the cumulative weight decay. This allows us to gauge the degree of example forgetting in large-scale training runs, indicating that many LLMs, including Lllama 3 405B, have forgotten the data seen at the beginning of training.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

How to safely discard features based on aggregate SHAP values

SHAP is one of the most popular local feature-attribution methods. Given a function f and an input x, it quantifies each feature's contribution to f(x). Recently, SHAP has been increasingly used for global insights: practitioners average the absolute SHAP values over many data points to compute global feature importance scores, which are then used to discard unimportant features. In this work, we investigate the soundness of this practice by asking whether small aggregate SHAP values necessarily imply that the corresponding feature does not affect the function. Unfortunately, the answer is no: even if the i-th SHAP value is 0 on the entire data support, there exist functions that clearly depend on Feature i. The issue is that computing SHAP values involves evaluating f on points outside of the data support, where f can be strategically designed to mask its dependence on Feature i. To address this, we propose to aggregate SHAP values over the extended support, which is the product of the marginals of the underlying distribution. With this modification, we show that a small aggregate SHAP value implies that we can safely discard the corresponding feature. We then extend our results to KernelSHAP, the most popular method to approximate SHAP values in practice. We show that if KernelSHAP is computed over the extended distribution, a small aggregate value justifies feature removal. This result holds independently of whether KernelSHAP accurately approximates true SHAP values, making it one of the first theoretical results to characterize the KernelSHAP algorithm itself. Our findings have both theoretical and practical implications. We introduce the Shapley Lie algebra, which offers algebraic insights that may enable a deeper investigation of SHAP and we show that randomly permuting each column of the data matrix enables safely discarding features based on aggregate SHAP and KernelSHAP values.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Mind the spikes: Benign overfitting of kernels and neural networks in fixed dimension

The success of over-parameterized neural networks trained to near-zero training error has caused great interest in the phenomenon of benign overfitting, where estimators are statistically consistent even though they interpolate noisy training data. While benign overfitting in fixed dimension has been established for some learning methods, current literature suggests that for regression with typical kernel methods and wide neural networks, benign overfitting requires a high-dimensional setting where the dimension grows with the sample size. In this paper, we show that the smoothness of the estimators, and not the dimension, is the key: benign overfitting is possible if and only if the estimator's derivatives are large enough. We generalize existing inconsistency results to non-interpolating models and more kernels to show that benign overfitting with moderate derivatives is impossible in fixed dimension. Conversely, we show that rate-optimal benign overfitting is possible for regression with a sequence of spiky-smooth kernels with large derivatives. Using neural tangent kernels, we translate our results to wide neural networks. We prove that while infinite-width networks do not overfit benignly with the ReLU activation, this can be fixed by adding small high-frequency fluctuations to the activation function. Our experiments verify that such neural networks, while overfitting, can indeed generalize well even on low-dimensional data sets.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

Disentangling Interactions and Dependencies in Feature Attribution

In explainable machine learning, global feature importance methods try to determine how much each individual feature contributes to predicting the target variable, resulting in one importance score for each feature. But often, predicting the target variable requires interactions between several features (such as in the XOR function), and features might have complex statistical dependencies that allow to partially replace one feature with another one. In commonly used feature importance scores these cooperative effects are conflated with the features' individual contributions, making them prone to misinterpretations. In this work, we derive DIP, a new mathematical decomposition of individual feature importance scores that disentangles three components: the standalone contribution and the contributions stemming from interactions and dependencies. We prove that the DIP decomposition is unique and show how it can be estimated in practice. Based on these results, we propose a new visualization of feature importance scores that clearly illustrates the different contributions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Auditing Local Explanations is Hard

In sensitive contexts, providers of machine learning algorithms are increasingly required to give explanations for their algorithms' decisions. However, explanation receivers might not trust the provider, who potentially could output misleading or manipulated explanations. In this work, we investigate an auditing framework in which a third-party auditor or a collective of users attempts to sanity-check explanations: they can query model decisions and the corresponding local explanations, pool all the information received, and then check for basic consistency properties. We prove upper and lower bounds on the amount of queries that are needed for an auditor to succeed within this framework. Our results show that successful auditing requires a potentially exorbitant number of queries -- particularly in high dimensional cases. Our analysis also reveals that a key property is the ``locality'' of the provided explanations -- a quantity that so far has not been paid much attention to in the explainability literature. Looking forward, our results suggest that for complex high-dimensional settings, merely providing a pointwise prediction and explanation could be insufficient, as there is no way for the users to verify that the provided explanations are not completely made-up.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

The Manifold Hypothesis for Gradient-Based Explanations

When do gradient-based explanation algorithms provide perceptually-aligned explanations? We propose a criterion: the feature attributions need to be aligned with the tangent space of the data manifold. To provide evidence for this hypothesis, we introduce a framework based on variational autoencoders that allows to estimate and generate image manifolds. Through experiments across a range of different datasets -- MNIST, EMNIST, CIFAR10, X-ray pneumonia and Diabetic Retinopathy detection -- we demonstrate that the more a feature attribution is aligned with the tangent space of the data, the more perceptually-aligned it tends to be. We then show that the attributions provided by popular post-hoc methods such as Integrated Gradients and SmoothGrad are more strongly aligned with the data manifold than the raw gradient. Adversarial training also improves the alignment of model gradients with the data manifold. As a consequence, we suggest that explanation algorithms should actively strive to align their explanations with the data manifold. This is an extended version of a CVPR Workshop paper. Code is available at https://github.com/tml-tuebingen/explanations-manifold.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Relating graph auto-encoders to linear models

Graph auto-encoders are widely used to construct graph representations in Euclidean vector spaces. However, it has already been pointed out empirically that linear models on many tasks can outperform graph auto-encoders. In our work, we prove that the solution space induced by graph auto-encoders is a subset of the solution space of a linear map. This demonstrates that linear embedding models have at least the representational power of graph auto-encoders based on graph convolutional networks. So why are we still using nonlinear graph auto-encoders? One reason could be that actively restricting the linear solution space might introduce an inductive bias that helps improve learning and generalization. While many researchers believe that the nonlinearity of the encoder is the critical ingredient towards this end, we instead identify the node features of the graph as a more powerful inductive bias. We give theoretical insights by introducing a corresponding bias in a linear model and analyzing the change in the solution space. Our experiments are aligned with other empirical work on this question and show that the linear encoder can outperform the nonlinear encoder when using feature information.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

ChatGPT Participates in a Computer Science Exam

We asked ChatGPT to participate in an undergraduate computer science exam on ''Algorithms and Data Structures''. The program was evaluated on the entire exam as posed to the students. We hand-copied its answers onto an exam sheet, which was subsequently graded in a blind setup alongside those of 200 participating students. We find that ChatGPT narrowly passed the exam, obtaining 20.5 out of 40 points. This impressive performance indicates that ChatGPT can indeed succeed in challenging tasks like university exams. At the same time, the questions in our exam are structurally similar to those of other exams, solved homework problems, and teaching materials that can be found online and might have been part of ChatGPT's training data. Therefore, it would be inadequate to conclude from this experiment that ChatGPT has any understanding of computer science. We also assess the improvements brought by GPT-4. We find that GPT-4 would have obtained about 17\% more exam points than GPT-3.5, reaching the performance of the average student. The transcripts of our conversations with ChatGPT are available at \url{https://github.com/tml-tuebingen/chatgpt-algorithm-exam}, and the entire graded exam is in the appendix of this paper.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

AI for Science: An Emerging Agenda

This report documents the programme and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 22382 "Machine Learning for Science: Bridging Data-Driven and Mechanistic Modelling". Today's scientific challenges are characterised by complexity. Interconnected natural, technological, and human systems are influenced by forces acting across time- and spatial-scales, resulting in complex interactions and emergent behaviours. Understanding these phenomena -- and leveraging scientific advances to deliver innovative solutions to improve society's health, wealth, and well-being -- requires new ways of analysing complex systems. The transformative potential of AI stems from its widespread applicability across disciplines, and will only be achieved through integration across research domains. AI for science is a rendezvous point. It brings together expertise from $\mathrm{AI}$ and application domains; combines modelling knowledge with engineering know-how; and relies on collaboration across disciplines and between humans and machines. Alongside technical advances, the next wave of progress in the field will come from building a community of machine learning researchers, domain experts, citizen scientists, and engineers working together to design and deploy effective AI tools. This report summarises the discussions from the seminar and provides a roadmap to suggest how different communities can collaborate to deliver a new wave of progress in AI and its application for scientific discovery.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2023

From Shapley Values to Generalized Additive Models and back

In explainable machine learning, local post-hoc explanation algorithms and inherently interpretable models are often seen as competing approaches. This work offers a partial reconciliation between the two by establishing a correspondence between Shapley Values and Generalized Additive Models (GAMs). We introduce $n$-Shapley Values, a parametric family of local post-hoc explanation algorithms that explain individual predictions with interaction terms up to order $n$. By varying the parameter $n$, we obtain a sequence of explanations that covers the entire range from Shapley Values up to a uniquely determined decomposition of the function we want to explain. The relationship between $n$-Shapley Values and this decomposition offers a functionally-grounded characterization of Shapley Values, which highlights their limitations. We then show that $n$-Shapley Values, as well as the Shapley Taylor- and Faith-Shap interaction indices, recover GAMs with interaction terms up to order $n$. This implies that the original Shapely Values recover GAMs without variable interactions. Taken together, our results provide a precise characterization of Shapley Values as they are being used in explainable machine learning. They also offer a principled interpretation of partial dependence plots of Shapley Values in terms of the underlying functional decomposition. A package for the estimation of different interaction indices is available at \url{https://github.com/tml-tuebingen/nshap}.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Pitfalls of Climate Network Construction: A Statistical Perspective

Network-based analyses of dynamical systems have become increasingly popular in climate science. Here we address network construction from a statistical perspective and highlight the often ignored fact that the calculated correlation values are only empirical estimates. To measure spurious behaviour as deviation from a ground truth network, we simulate time-dependent isotropic random fields on the sphere and apply common network construction techniques. We find several ways in which the uncertainty stemming from the estimation procedure has major impact on network characteristics. When the data has locally coherent correlation structure, spurious link bundle teleconnections and spurious high-degree clusters have to be expected. Anisotropic estimation variance can also induce severe biases into empirical networks. We validate our findings with ERA5 reanalysis data. Moreover we explain why commonly applied resampling procedures are inappropriate for significance evaluation and propose a statistically more meaningful ensemble construction framework. By communicating which difficulties arise in estimation from scarce data and by presenting which design decisions increase robustness, we hope to contribute to more reliable climate network construction in the future.

cs.LG↗